Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Jodie.Lynne

Is Faith an Accurate Pathway to Truth?

1,348 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Mr Walker
33 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

Ah, but you clearly do--to everyone else. To set loose the dogs of reason can have the unfortunate consequence of them turning around and biting one in the ****. One must learn to keep them on a shorter leash.:rolleyes:

i have no idea what you mean.

"Clearly do what, to everyone else?".

No one else knows me, my thoughts or self  They are neither qualified to judge, nor able to do so, objectively, as they have no knowledge of me  What they tend to do is impute rationales, based on their own lives, to explain my nature and  beliefs,  values etc.  They interpret what i say, and twist it in their minds and posts,   from what i meant into something they think i must have meant, because that makes sense to them. 

i am not responsible for how others judge or perceive me, only for the coherence, honesty, and rightfulness, of my own ethics and behaviours.  I only have to meet my own high standards for myself, not those of anyone else. 

true logic and reason cant bite people or hurt them. It is just logic. It is the emotional responses, not the logic, of people which causes pain and hurt.    

 

Ah think i got it.  You believe i do those thngs in the chart to others 

or, to others ,it seems i do them .

Sorry, but see above.

I've been highly self aware, self analytical and working on understanding my mind  since i was  a child (with deliberate  help from my parents who explained a lot of things to me about the human mind cognition and basic psychology )  I've studied psychology ie spent a decade counselling adolescents in physical and mental health   This allows me to know understand and avoid all those techniques even if i needed them.

But i don't. I moved past such needs as a young adult, based on techniques earned in childhood and adolescence  Some people become professional footballers i spent a life studying the mind  

Edited by Mr Walker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rlyeh
2 hours ago, Habitat said:

Competition has nothing to do with it.

You should find out what they offered compared to the belief systems of the time, then tell me competition had nothing to do with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
XenoFish
7 hours ago, Jodie.Lynne said:

Wouldn't it be nice, if we could see through others eyes and minds to experience what they do.

Like a Vulcan mind meld, we could know what others do

No, absolutely not. That would be as bad an idea as telepathy. The world is screwed up now. Imagine how much worse it would be to literally know everyone's real thoughts and feelings. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Davros of Skaro
2 hours ago, Hammerclaw said:

Yep, like binging on a sack of Oreos. Not one rational reason to eat the darn things, but the God damn sugar rush is euphoric!

I salute you sir!

fce2a143322826a79198622bc5bfb628.jpg

It's silly to do the mental pretzel making excuses to eat Oreos other than the actual reason.

1 hour ago, DieChecker said:

Hummmm..... Yes.

Hummmm.... No. You're just like the rest. Look at one your excuses that you used in this thread. You believe because just in case it's true you will be prepared (paraphrased). How about I believe in Superman just in case I will not be shocked just in case I see him fly by?

Faith to you is an evidenced, reasoned, and logical belief system. It has to be otherwise you can't hold it. 

Quote

And the most of the teachings (of Jesus) are conducive to a orderly benevolent society.

The Golden Rule is a philosophy beyond the Abrahamic mythos.

As for the Jesus character it just makes people sick in the head. What I believe the original Christian community was preaching I do in a way already of sorts. But I will not get into that here, and not that you would listen anyway.

Have a nice Sun's day buddy.

Huh... I just saw a lime green Lamborghini Diablo drive by. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
19 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

No, absolutely not. That would be as bad an idea as telepathy. The world is screwed up now. Imagine how much worse it would be to literally know everyone's real thoughts and feelings. 

Wouldn't worry me. it might compel people to know and understand others and themselves more honestly  The reason the world is screwed up is largely because we lie to ourselves and to others.    of course it might force some people to think nicer thoughts. :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
eight bits
2 hours ago, Hammerclaw said:

That's just circling the wagons around the flag of personal faith which can be about anything. One either knows something or one does not--anything else is speculation with a high or low statistical probability. 

Well, the question of God is contingent, so the most there ever is or can be within the currently approved ways of knowing is high or low confidence in whichever proposed answer appeals. "Confidence" to a large extent can be well represented by probability constructs. (I assume that's more or less what you mean by statistical probability.)

That's not "circling the wagons" or any other human voluntary activity. That's the nature of the problem, and the limitations of the aspiring problem solvers.

Quote

In the case of Poincare, his subconscious must have been working in overdrive to produce a solution. I don't see any metaphysical hand in it.

I'm a Jungian sympathizer, so of course I say that Poincare's unconscious contributed work to produce a fully apprehended solution. So what? Saint Paul's unconscious was no layabed, either. Whether or not you see anything "metaphysical" in Saint Paul's writings, those writings are foundational to any conception of faith expressed in a Western European language.

I have no earthly reason to make any distinction whatsoever between the character of Poincare's experience and Saint Paul's experience. The subject matter was different, so they adopted different means, but to the same end, namely the wisespread social acceptance of the truth revealed to them privately during their experience.

Poincare initially had no better reason than Paul had to think that he'd solved any part of his problem. Saint Paul had no inferior reason than Henri's (initially) to think he had chatted up the risen Jesus.

Edited by eight bits
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hammerclaw
34 minutes ago, eight bits said:

Well, the question of God is contingent, so the most there ever is or can be within the currently approved ways of knowing is high or low confidence in whichever proposed answer appeals. "Confidence" to a large extent can be well represented by probability constructs. (I assume that's more or less what you mean by statistical probability.)

That's not "circling the wagons" or any other human voluntary activity. That's the nature of the problem, and the limitations of the aspiring problem solvers.

I'm a Jungian sympathizer, so of course I say that Poincare's unconscious contributed work to produce a fully apprehended solution. So what? Saint Paul's unconscious was no layabed, either. Whether or not you see anything "metaphysical" in Saint Paul's writings, those writings are foundational to any conception of faith expressed in a Western European language.

I have no earthly reason to make any distinction whatsoever between the character of Poincare's experience and Saint Paul's experience. The subject matter was different, so they adopted different means, but to the same end, namely the wisespread social acceptance of the truth revealed to them privately during their experience.

Poincare initially had no better reason than Paul had to think that he'd solved any part of his problem. Saint Paul had no inferior reason than Henri's (initially) to think he had chatted up the risen Jesus.

One may believe what one will. Once the major hurdle is passed (belief in God) one can rationalize and believe pretty much anything. Proving it's quite another thing, entirely. Widespread social acceptance does not make something right or truth. I must say it's the first time I've heard God's revelation compared to a mathematical equation. Two human minds, one producing a mathematical solution, the other overcome by religious ecstasy and talking burros and blindness attributable to bad liquor. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
eight bits
4 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

I must say it's the first time I've heard God's revelation compared to a mathematical equation.

Thanks (I think), but there's not much chance the comparison is original with me.

Quote

Two human minds, one producing a mathematical solution, the other overcome by religious ecstasy and talking burros and blindness attributable to bad liquor. 

That's one metaphysical stance of course. Another is that both men were passive vessels for something outside themselves to enter into the world through them.

But we don't have to resolve the metaphysics within the topic. Is Faith an accurate pathway to truth? might be profitably turned around to Are there accurate pathways to truth that lead to faith? I still don't know the answer to that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Liquid Gardens
14 hours ago, eight bits said:

Are there accurate pathways to truth that lead to faith? In other words, can we look at faith as the result of some inquiry rather than as a method for inquiry, and if we do, does it turn out that faith can arise from some respectable method of inquiry?

Well put, I tried to say something along the same lines that I'm not sure faith is even a path as opposed to a position, but you've phrased it much better.  Not that I'm sure what to do with that idea any more than you.  I don't know if I know how to define or differentiate 'accurate', or if I should be doing what my brain seems to want to with that word by treating as synonymous with 'valid'.  In one sense, why would someone even have need for any faith if the truth is supported by an accurate/valid pathway?  I understand that 'accurate' is different than 'valid' or 'rational' or 'justified', but if I separate them then 'looking at a broken watch is an accurate pathway to truth', just twice a day, which seems a little odd way to put it. 

The way I typically define 'faith' it seems accurate pathways to truth do lead to faith but incidentally; faith seems to be where you are after you've exhausted (or ignored) the accurate pathways to truth and still believe.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Will Due
49 minutes ago, eight bits said:

Is Faith an accurate pathway to truth? might be profitably turned around to Are there accurate pathways to truth that lead to faith? 

 

Yes. This was the experience that led to faith for me. I had an accurate pathway to truth and when I realized that, I began to excersise the other thing my pathway led to, faith 

In my opinion, all pathways accurately reveal truth. Every one of them.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
XenoFish

I think a practical version of faith is that which you might place in someone. Typically based on your experience with them. It's a form of trust. You might have faith in their ability to do x,y,z for you. Are you might put faith in the their ability to repay the money they've borrowed. This type of faith can be tested, depending on the results a truth can be shown. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danydandan
6 hours ago, Habitat said:

So you think these people incited others to commit crimes ? Or turned a blind eye to crimes committed by their followers ? Please give examples.

Specifically just Religious ones or general examples?

Considering people literally believed in an eye for an eye or a tooth for a tooth, any crime was retaliated as thus. Therefore there are many examples of this, where one action influenced an other.

Edited by danydandan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hammerclaw
1 hour ago, eight bits said:

Thanks (I think), but there's not much chance the comparison is original with me.

That's one metaphysical stance of course. Another is that both men were passive vessels for something outside themselves to enter into the world through them.

But we don't have to resolve the metaphysics within the topic. Is Faith an accurate pathway to truth? might be profitably turned around to Are there accurate pathways to truth that lead to faith? I still don't know the answer to that.

"What is truth? Is truth unchanging law? We all have truths--are mine the same as yours?"       Jesus Christ, Super Star

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
eight bits
2 hours ago, Hammerclaw said:

"What is truth? Is truth unchanging law? We all have truths--are mine the same as yours?"       Jesus Christ, Super Star

Albert Einstein: Are you thinking what I am thinking?

Ed Walters: Well what would be the odds of that?

I.Q.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danydandan
5 minutes ago, eight bits said:

Albert Einstein: Are you thinking what I am thinking?

Ed Walters: Well what would be the odds of that?

I.Q.

Who is Ed Walters?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guyver
7 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

I admit i am surprised the numbers remain so high but then ive spent years in a sytem where only evolution was allowed to be taught  in a country where fundamentalism never really took off  

One survey in south Africa showed that, even among declared  atheists and agnostics, almost 20% believed in creationism (and  no, i cant work that one out either) 

The results showed differences between teachers from different religions with regard to their views of evolution. Among teachers who identified as agnostic or atheist, 17% held creationist views.

http://www.scielo.org.za/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0038-23532016000300016

 

I appreciate that you took the time to do some research and post up some data with regard to our conversation.  I do think the data supports my point.  The numbers for Jehovah Witness, Mormon, and Protestant/Evangelical support my original assertion.  The Catholic numbers at 58% leave 42% which also agree with my original assertion.  

According to this link, 75% of Americans consider themselves Christian.  So, just in America that translates to about 245 million people.  About 62% of these people have a formal religious affiliation (church membership) and 51.3% of these are Protestant.  The Mormons are the fourth largest church organization in America and over 78% of them believe in special creation or do not identify as evolutionists.  

So, as I said.....in America.....this translates to a large number of people - who do view the bible as an accurate source on creation.  This does not mean that all of these people accept a young Earth.....there is no timeline in the bible on when the Earth was created.  The religious idea that the world is only 10,000 years old or less comes from Bishop Ussher's chronology which was published in 1650.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guyver
7 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

That is not true, and i know it from  my own life. Humans do not HAVE to feel pain, suffering, grief, loss etc  We think of these as natural, and even productive emotions, but they are only how we are taut to feel and respond.We  know now that even physical pain is a construct of the mind not a product of the body, and can be  largely managed using mental techniques 

You can believe this or not, but in the last half century i have not spent a total  of 10 minutes worrying about anything. I've never not been able to fall asleep immediately 

It's not that I don't believe you......because I know that the mind is a powerful thing.  I've observed the video of a Buddhist monk setting himself on fire in protest of the Viet Nam war, and burning himself to death without screaming.  People can do amazing things based on their own beliefs and practices.  

But, he didn't get off this rock unscathed, and neither did you or anyone else.  My point stands.  The fact that you choose to deny any pain or fear that you receive just demonstrates that you are a very unusual person.  Most people do not have that level of psychological awareness or capability.

If my dog died, I would be sad.  This goes for everyone I've ever known.....except maybe for you.  I think my point is valid.  FWIW.  

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
eight bits
2 hours ago, danydandan said:

Who is Ed Walters?

The Tim Robbins character:

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sci-nerd

When I grew up in the late 70's and early 80's, we were taught that faith, hope and love was all you needed to succeed in life. Many adults even wore necklaces with a cross, an anchor and a heart to symbolise it.
But what life has taught me, and many others, who have shared their stories, is that those three things are useless when it comes to achievement and success. What you need is will and determination.

Regarding truth: No human will ever know the truth about life or reality. Faith or no faith, we will never know.

Edited by sci-nerd
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
XenoFish
11 minutes ago, sci-nerd said:

What you need is will and determination.

More like the Three D's.

Drive, Determination, and Diligence. To really break that down you must have the drive to succeed, the determination to go forward regardless of set backs, and the diligence to stay the course. The tricky thing is what is the underlining motivation behind all that. Is it the Hope for something better, to create something out of love, or something that you think you could achieve (that thing being an act of faith). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Habitat
9 hours ago, danydandan said:

Specifically just Religious ones or general examples?

Considering people literally believed in an eye for an eye or a tooth for a tooth, any crime was retaliated as thus. Therefore there are many examples of this, where one action influenced an other.

Let me clarify. The source of religious "truth", aka "God", is not accessible second hand. All the great  religious figureheads, like Christ and many others, preached just that, the solitary nature of true religiosity. It does not involve anyone else, but yourself.

They did not advise people to join up to a flock, under some bureaucracy that deems itself specially qualified at mediating the "message". Unless you can cite examples to the contrary !

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Will Due

 

I think the main distinction between objective scientific truth and subjective religious truth is that when it comes to the former, somebody else does the work to prove it's true.

But in order to know what's true with the later, unless a person does the work themselves, proof is irrelevant. And without meaning nor value. 

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
7 hours ago, Guyver said:

It's not that I don't believe you......because I know that the mind is a powerful thing.  I've observed the video of a Buddhist monk setting himself on fire in protest of the Viet Nam war, and burning himself to death without screaming.  People can do amazing things based on their own beliefs and practices.  

But, he didn't get off this rock unscathed, and neither did you or anyone else.  My point stands.  The fact that you choose to deny any pain or fear that you receive just demonstrates that you are a very unusual person.  Most people do not have that level of psychological awareness or capability.

If my dog died, I would be sad.  This goes for everyone I've ever known.....except maybe for you.  I think my point is valid.  FWIW.  

It is not denial. It is simply choosing not to feel It  It is possible because, while young, I  came to understand that we construct and chose EVERY response we make to every situation in life  They are NOT beyond our abilty to reconstruct or alter 

I gave my mother's and father's eulogies, among the many I have given,  and i cried at moments during both, but that was a choice to construct an appropriate level of grief for a much loved parent  There was no real pain, grief, suffering,or loss They wouldn't have wanted it, and i had more productive emotions to be feeling including love and remembrance.

  There was nothing in our relationship which caused  guilt, or regret for things said or unsaid .  

Ive lost a number of dogs including some euthanased in my arms, and some i had to put down myself. 

yes i am sad but that is a choice, because sadness is appropriate at the loss of a loved one  it serves a useful purpose,   It s not a negative or destructive emotion. it doesn't  scathe you, it uplifts you. 

People le have always pointed out that i am a bit unusual  One of the reasons i am asked to do so many eulogies is not just because i am good at outlining the life of the deceased and am a good speaker but because i can talk about such things and death and loss and grief with true emotion, without being overwhelmed by it 

( i was actually offered a job at a funeral home as a person who ran the ceremonies,  based on the eulogies i had given to a dozen people at that home ) .

 Some think i am unfeeling or uncaring but the opposite is true.

I care and feel a lot, but i use my feelings for constructive purposes  and don't let them affect me negatively

It worries me a lot tha t people believe that hurt and pain, and loss and grief, are all natural inevitable parts of living  The y are not, if we refuse to allow them to be.

  Life should be filled with joy and wonder, peace,  acceptance and tranquillity;  with just enough stimulation and challenge to enthuse but not overwhelm us. :)     

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Habitat
4 hours ago, sci-nerd said:

When I grew up in the late 70's and early 80's, we were taught that faith, hope and love was all you needed to succeed in life. Many adults even wore necklaces with a cross, an anchor and a heart to symbolise it.
But what life has taught me, and many others, who have shared their stories, is that those three things are useless when it comes to achievement and success. What you need is will and determination.

Regarding truth: No human will ever know the truth about life or reality. Faith or no faith, we will never know.

This is the classic opposition of  "the World", where, indeed, will and determination are pre-requisites of what most call "success", and what some call "The Spirit", where those things are nothing but a handicap. In that realm, which many scoff at the very existence of, only utter simplicity, and a heart where love reigns, offers any hope of a breakthrough. Those pre-conditions are only met by uncompromising acceptance of truth, however humbling that might be to us.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
4 hours ago, sci-nerd said:

When I grew up in the late 70's and early 80's, we were taught that faith, hope and love was all you needed to succeed in life. Many adults even wore necklaces with a cross, an anchor and a heart to symbolise it.
But what life has taught me, and many others, who have shared their stories, is that those three things are useless when it comes to achievement and success. What you need is will and determination.

Regarding truth: No human will ever know the truth about life or reality. Faith or no faith, we will never know.

To me non religious faith (in self. in life, in others  etc ) gives me the will and determination required  I believe i can do anything and so i can.  So, not useless, but  you need all the things mentioned in your post. 

No good being successful if you have no hope,  no faith, and no love.

Indeed i cant imagine any true form of success that did not include, or allow for, those things.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.